1. In the preface to the second edition of "Critique of Pure Reason" (page B xvi) Kant says: "Thus far it has been assumed that all our cognition must conform to objects. On that presupposition, however, all our attempts to establish something about them a priori, by means of concepts through which our cognition would be expanded, have come to nothing. Let us, therefore, try to find out by experiment whether we shall not make better progress in the problems of metaphysics if we assume that objects must conform to our cognition." How are we to understand this?
My interpretation of Kant’s view and writing on this matter is that he urges society and mankind to revolutionize the way we think about metaphysics. Instead of assuming that cognition through metaphysics must automatically conform to objects, we must broaden our views and dare to challenge that thought. By conducting experiments, where we presuppose that objects instead must conform to our cognition, we may be able to make progress and even solve problems of metaphysics. Kant exemplifies this “shifting of viewpoints” by telling us the story of how Nicolaus Copernicus formed heliocentric hypothesis in order to make sense of the celestial movements and thus eventually giving name to the revolutionary astronomical model Copernican heliocentrism. Objects conforming to our cognition, I would presume, means that we as humans should look within us at our initial perception of understanding and knowledge of objects. Instead of focusing on the characteristics of objects we should look at how we initially interpret observations, theories and how our cognitive qualities as individuals play a role in what the end result will be. Acquired knowledge depends to a greater extent on the beholder perception and the minds of thinkers rather than “preexisting” but undiscovered variables deducted from observing an object.
I think that metaphysics in it’s definition is bound to stay “meta”. Science has been formed and migrated from a basis of metaphysics when metaphysicists started to look for proof to their theories. In my mind metaphysics is a scientific equivalent of brainstorming and I don’t see the absolute need of “securing” a certain scientific path for it. However, like brainstorming, I think metaphysics would benefit from shifted perspectives and new methods.
2. At the end of the discussion of the definition "Knowledge is perception", Socrates argues that we do not see and hear "with" the eyes and the ears, but "through" the eyes and the ears. How are we to understand this? And in what way is it correct to say that Soctrates argument is directed towards what we in modern terms call "empiricism"?
Like Kant, Socrates believes that knowledge is related to how the human mind perceives and interprets the information retrieved from its sensory receptors. The eyes and ears in this context are merely forms of medium. It is up to us as individuals to make our own interpretation of the sensory information. Socrates advocates that initial knowledge thereby is arbitrarily defined regarding to the perception of individuals, their experience and opinions in beforehand. The experience-based theory of empiricism is closely related to this definition of knowledge but requires evidence in the form of multiple sources of different individuals’ experience, experiments and observations in order to gain validity. As individuals’ views of knowledge are relative to their own perceptions and differ in characteristics and conclusions, it is required that we form a common ground, an average of perceptions, in order to obtain a truer, more finite, knowledge.
Inga kommentarer:
Skicka en kommentar